No edit summary |
thought |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
* {{Oppose}} - Refer to [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad/Archive02]] --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 16:52, 13 July 2006 (CDT) | * {{Oppose}} - Refer to [[Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad/Archive02]] --[[User:Shane|Shane]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Shane|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Shane|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/Shane|E]])</sup> 16:52, 13 July 2006 (CDT) | ||
== Thought == | |||
I think Merv is in the right direction with this. While it has never been codified anywhere, we are an encyclopedia and episode guide -- and we are not a repository for links. Wikipedia itself has something similar: [[Wikipedia:WP:NOT|"Wikipedia is not a repository of links"]]. Furthermore, I wouldn't mind having people scrutinize links for inclusion. For instance, editors will question an edit that is questionable and not sourced correctly, so why should we treat web links any differently? -- [[User:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|Joe Beaudoin]] <sup>[[User talk:Joe Beaudoin Jr.|So say we all]] - [[Battlestar Wiki:Site support|Donate]]</sup> 21:56, 13 July 2006 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 02:56, 14 July 2006
Oppose - Refer to Battlestar Wiki talk:Citation Jihad/Archive02 --Shane (T - C - E) 16:52, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
Thought
I think Merv is in the right direction with this. While it has never been codified anywhere, we are an encyclopedia and episode guide -- and we are not a repository for links. Wikipedia itself has something similar: "Wikipedia is not a repository of links". Furthermore, I wouldn't mind having people scrutinize links for inclusion. For instance, editors will question an edit that is questionable and not sourced correctly, so why should we treat web links any differently? -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate 21:56, 13 July 2006 (CDT)